fact: rosewall beat him in RG 68 on clay
fact: French pro in 67 was indoors
fact: pro majors had didn't have the depth
fact: drysdale, nowhere close to being a major winner, beat laver in USO 68 , so don't give me that the depth of the field and possibility of an upset isn't there ....... laver is no federer who had a streak of 23 consecutive major semis ......
fact: pro majors are not equivalent of a full major

things that you lavertard cannot accept ....it hurts doesn't it ?

of course, it does ....... now stop crying ......and come up with one more of those hilariously dumb statements of yours ...... its fun ......

You dumbo probably du not know that Drisdale was a finalist at 1965 Forest Hills, so he was not that far away from a major title...and keep delusional about the " bif Federer/Emerson like" era...

__________________
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet

Because the fact is he's has greater competition than any past generations, and that's just about in every sports. The old-timers are saying the opposite but deep down they know it isn't true. They hated the when experts/ex-players/general fans keep mentioned about tennis played at a higher level, more depth, more talented players, more quality....

greater
more
better
higher
more
more
more

You sound like a Republican candidate. Maybe if you keep repeating these terms enough, someone will believe them.

Deep down what I know is that today's game is very powerful and very physical, but also very limited. No one, and I mean noone today is a great volleyer. Hardly anyone can or does hit well-placed lobs or drop shots. The closest thing we have today to an all-court player is Federer.

And if he were better at volleying he would be more complete and better, and thus greater than he is. But he does not have to be, and this tells me a lot--deep down.

Of course, by your logic (that tennis is always and inevitably getting better), tennis will better tomorrow, and better the day after that. And thus it will be better the day after Fed retires than the day before.

Deep down.

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

he was 81-4 in 2005 , winning 2 slams, being in the semis of the other 2 ( losing the AO semi after having MPs) , and was in the final of the YEC ..

I'd say that's pretty dominant .....

dominance has to be judged both subjectively and objectively .....

What you are saying is that in his best years, Federer played about 85 matches a year, against very low ranked players in early rounds of tournaments (the advantage of being the number one seed), and time off to rest between tournaments.
Compare that to Laver in 1969, who essentially played two circuits, the open and the pro tours, and played 122 matches, losing only 16.
Bear in mind that the pro tours of the 1950's and 1960's were a concentration of the best tennis talent in a small group, playing each other day after day.
Imagine if Federer had played against only the top 8 players all year long. How would his record look then?
I would have to rate Hoad's year in 1959 as the best ever, playing two championship circuits with a record of 76 wins and 33 losses, plus a total of over 150 matches (about twice the number that Fed plays), with a 70% record against a list of opponents unequalled in tennis history; Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Hartwig, Rose, McGregor, Giammalva. All of these players had major resumes, even Giammalva, who won the Eastern Grasscourts in 1955 (beating Seixas, Nielsen) and was a U.S. Davis Cup player. Hartwig was runnerup at Forest Hills in 1954 (and beat Hoad twice in 1959), McGregor was Wimbledon runnerup in 1951 and Australian champion in 1952.
I would like to see Federer the Great handle a wooden raquet and play a full year against this field (which would include Hoad) and see what his record would look like.

You sound like a Republican candidate. Maybe if you keep repeating these terms enough, someone will believe them.

Deep down what I know is that today's game is very powerful and very physical, but also very limited. No one, and I mean noone today is a great volleyer. Hardly anyone can or does hit well-placed lobs or drop shots. The closest thing we have today to an all-court player is Federer.

And if he were better at volleying he would be more complete and better, and thus greater than he is. But he does not have to be, and this tells me a lot--deep down.

Of course, by your logic (that tennis is always and inevitably getting better), tennis will better tomorrow, and better the day after that. And thus it will be better the day after Fed retires than the day before.

Deep down.

Why do you insist that it has to stay constant? If players continue to try to improve then the only direction they are heading is getting better, not worse. More athletes means more competition, and more competition will push players from younger generation to be better. That's just how it works, to say otherwise is in denial. It doesn't take tennis alone to acknowledge the game is a more global sport which all the best players in the world are playing on the atp tour. Basketball, hockey, or soccer are all played at a much higher level than in the 60s. Why? More global sport, more athletes, more talented players.

There's no volley doesn't mean athletes are getting worse. They have other areas to master, which the past players aren't equip with. Agassi had s/v in the 90s, he always believe today's players are better and "I watch these guys play from my living room, and I thank God I don't play anymore".

You sound like a Republican candidate. Maybe if you keep repeating these terms enough, someone will believe them.

Deep down what I know is that today's game is very powerful and very physical, but also very limited. No one, and I mean noone today is a great volleyer. Hardly anyone can or does hit well-placed lobs or drop shots. The closest thing we have today to an all-court player is Federer.

And if he were better at volleying he would be more complete and better, and thus greater than he is. But he does not have to be, and this tells me a lot--deep down.

Of course, by your logic (that tennis is always and inevitably getting better), tennis will better tomorrow, and better the day after that. And thus it will be better the day after Fed retires than the day before.

Deep down.

I agree with you. A person cannot assume a sport is necessarily getting better.

I'll give you a major difference between tennis and other sports. In other sports like baseball things have remained the same as far as equipment is concerned. Tennis changes equipment every day, every second. The racquets improve constantly. The strings improve constantly. The players don't necessarily improve constantly.

Superior equipment means you don't have to do as much to get superior results. I can now hit topspin backhand lobs and I couldn't do that years ago with a small wood racquet. I can hit with more consistency and power now than in the past. And I am not nearly the player I was in the past. Not that I ever was good.

Wood racquets forced players like McEnroe or Laver to use a more variety of shots. They had to volley better, change angles better, hit drop shots and lob better. They don't need to do that now. Would these lost skills help the players of today? Of course they would if they players used these skills wisely.

There are other reasons that tennis is different from other sports but I don't feel like mentioning them now.

If today better than the past? Maybe. But maybe the past is better than the present? A guy like Nalbanian for example is hardly a superior athlete, even at his best and yet he was a top player. Baghdatis was a top player and hardly in my opinion a great athlete. It's not necessarily better today. It's not set in stone.

I agree with you. A person cannot assume a sport is necessarily getting better.

I'll give you a major difference between tennis and other sports. In other sports like baseball things have remained the same as far as equipment is concerned. Tennis changes equipment every day, every second. The racquets improve constantly. The strings improve constantly. The players don't necessarily improve constantly.

Superior equipment means you don't have to do as much to get superior results. I can now hit topspin backhand lobs and I couldn't do that years ago with a small wood racquet. I can hit with more consistency and power now than in the past. And I am not nearly the player I was in the past. Not that I ever was good.

Wood racquets forced players like McEnroe or Laver to use a more variety of shots. They had to volley better, change angles better, hit drop shots and lob better. They don't need to do that now. Would these lost skills help the players of today? Of course they would if they players used these skills wisely.

There are other reasons that tennis is different from other sports but I don't feel like mentioning them now.

If today better than the past? Maybe. But maybe the past is better than the present? A guy like Nalbanian for example is hardly a superior athlete, even at his best and yet he was a top player. Baghdatis was a top player and hardly in my opinion a great athlete. It's not necessarily better today. It's not set in stone.

Hello pc1,

It is hard to compare eras that use different technology, and obviously the type of game that is played will be different. Some people will prefer one over the other, but that isn't relevant.

Let us look at only one, simple aspect of improvement in any particular sport.

Basically, you and I are both going to pick (at random, but this is really just to ensure that we aren't playing a game of who is the better scout) a group of people who will then be trained by the exact same coaches to play tennis using whatever type of technology we agree upon. Each group will play among themselves in order to find the best player who will then play the best player from the other group.

To start in an extreme manner, you only get to pick ten people and I get to pick ten million. Do you think the best player from your group will be better than my best?

__________________
Consider the set of all sets that have never been considered.

There is only two ways to counterbalance it: either Fed starts beating up Nadal, and I think this is the easiest of the two possibilities...and retires winning 3 GS ( of course, only calendar counts) which I don´t think he is able to...in fact, with pathetic 2003-2006 opposition he wasn´t able so figure it now¡¡¡¡

Interesting, Federer clobbered nearly everyone in that time period and twice came within one match of winning a calendar Grand Slam -- that one match being the French Open final, against Nadal. So the thing keeping Federer from winning the calendar Grand Slam twice -- the only "pathetic" opposition, in you words -- was Nadal. Arguably the greatest claycourter of all time, but to you he's the "pathetic" opposition that prevented Federer's Grand Slam.

You know that I perfectly meant Laver/Hoad/Gonzales/Rosewall, then transition (Newcombe and nastase leading a very good group with Ashe,Roche,Kodes,Smith...) and then Connors/Borg/Vilas.The two big eras were Laver and Rosewall and then Borg and Connors although the early 70´s were really exciting...

not like the very boring Federer dominance transitional era, in between the great Agassi/sampras/rafter rivalry and the stronger Djokovic/Nadal/Federer trio of nowadays.

That Roddick and Hewitt were the biggest threats to Federer says it all...

I won´t discuss about Federer and Laver.Federer is a modern Emerson and Laver won the big thing about 3 times...

no, gonzales/hoad were well off their peak when Laver hit his ...hence his luck
...

emerson was never the best player in the world ... federer was for many weeks and many years - against full fields ... including in 2012 where he wrestled it away from djoker ...laver won the GS only once ... and he didn't have the dominance that federer had ... federer's competition at his peak wasn't just hewitt/roddick.... there was still strong agassi, safin, nalbandian, nadal on clay, then grass, dabydenko, then djoker etc

federer > laver ... it is too much for you to accept right row .... But eventually you'll learn to deal with it ....

a different case ..... Don Budge entered the pros next year and proved himself to be the best player in the world ....

Laver wasn't in 62 ... he got clobbered by Rosewall/Hoad the next year in 63 ....

Yes there were differences between the two situations -- which you would expect. But whether or not Budge was the best player in the world in '38 (some thought he was, others still said that about Vines) -- if he had faced a full field his chances of sweeping all four Slam events would have dropped dramatically. Probably his chances would have been slim, if he had faced Vines, Perry, von Cramm and Nusslein: the latter two would have been particularly difficult to beat at the French and would arguably have been the favorites there.

And isn't that the what we're talking about -- whether or not someone would have won his Grand Slam, if he had faced a full field? Even Laver's fans agree that he wouldn't have won a Grand Slam in '62 if he'd faced all the pros, but does that mean he didn't really win a Grand Slam in '62?

If it means that, then Budge also didn't really win a Grand Slam in '38.

Yes there were differences between the two situations -- which you would expect. But whether or not Budge was the best player in the world in '38 (some thought he was, others still said that about Vines) -- if he had faced a full field his chances of sweeping all four Slam events would have dropped dramatically. Probably his chances would have been slim, if he had faced Vines, Perry, von Cramm and Nusslein: the latter two would have been particularly difficult to beat at the French and would arguably have been the favorites there.

agreed ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

And isn't that the what we're talking about -- whether or not someone would have won his Grand Slam, if he had faced a full field? Even Laver's fans agree that he wouldn't have won a Grand Slam in '62 if he'd faced all the pros, but does that mean he didn't really win a Grand Slam in '62?

If it means that, then Budge also didn't really win a Grand Slam in '38.

'Technically', Laver did win the grand slam in 62. Just that I don't place that much significance on it ...

The reason why the grand slam assumes value is it shows that the player was clearly the best player over the year,dominating, winning all 4 majors .....

But we know that wasn't exactly the case with Laver in 62 . Rosewall and Hoad were clearly better than him then ...

'Technically', Laver did win the grand slam in 62. Just that I don't place that much significance on it ...

The reason why the grand slam assumes value is it shows that the player was clearly the best player over the year,dominating, winning all 4 majors .....

But we know that wasn't exactly the case with Laver in 62 . Rosewall and Hoad were clearly better than him then ...

I think that's one reason the Grand Slam assumes value: it shows one player clearly better than his peers. But that is not the only value to a Grand Slam, and arguably not even the most significant one. A player can show himself to be clearly the best player over the course of the year, such as with Federer's 81-4 record for '05: one of the best records in history; and yet it contains only two wins at the majors.

Sweeping the four majors is not just about showing yourself to be the best in a group of players. It's also -- I would argue, mainly -- an achievement in its own right. It's a perfect record at the majors. The sweep is the unique thing -- the thing that defines the Grand Slam.

Yes of course it usually follows from a perfect record at the majors that the player must be considered the best for the year. But that's not necessary, as you can see with Laver in '62, or possibly with Budge in '38 -- and you could see that even today. It's possible to imagine that the second-best player today can sweep the Slams if his major rival is injured or retires. But does that mean that the player did not really win a Grand Slam?

Yes I get that you don't place much significance on the '62 Slam. I do, but fine. I just don't think it can not be counted as a Grand Slam, as you said before when you gave Laver only his '69 Slam.

Interesting, Federer clobbered nearly everyone in that time period and twice came within one match of winning a calendar Grand Slam -- that one match being the French Open final, against Nadal. So the thing keeping Federer from winning the calendar Grand Slam twice -- the only "pathetic" opposition, in you words -- was Nadal. Arguably the greatest claycourter of all time, but to you he's the "pathetic" opposition that prevented Federer's Grand Slam.

Unbelievable.

Nadal is a weak-era goat of clay.He would have folded like wet laundry to STRONGER competitions like,Borg,Rosewall,Kodes,Vilas,Kuerten,Bruguera,Go mez, etc,,,¡¡¡¡

__________________
"I can cry like Roger, it’s just a shame I can’t play like him." - Andy Murray

Why do you insist that it has to stay constant? If players continue to try to improve then the only direction they are heading is getting better, not worse.

I do not insist that it stays constant. I do not insist that it is getting worse. I merely doubt that it is always getting better. There are nuances of meaning possible. It appears to me that the game of tennis has ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys. In other words sometimes it goes up but it can also go down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF

There's no volley doesn't mean athletes are getting worse. They have other areas to master, which the past players aren't equip with. Agassi had s/v in the 90s, he always believe today's players are better and "I watch these guys play from my living room, and I thank God I don't play anymore".

Let's try a basketball analogy: what if players worked on nothing but their outside jump shots, so that they could make them from farther and farther away--35 feet, 40 feet, 50 feet, 60 feet. People would say amazing!

These are surely the best players ever. But one day these players come up against a supremely man-to-man defensive team, and are required to shoot lay-ups. The problem is they don't know how because they have never practiced them. They don't make sense in a game built around hitting jump-shots from 60 feet.

I say that Bill Russell or Michael Jordan is better because each can make jump shots from 30+ feet and do awesome layups or dunks.

__________________
In the end, the aggressive all-court player always has the advantage against a power-bashing baseliner.

It is hard to compare eras that use different technology, and obviously the type of game that is played will be different. Some people will prefer one over the other, but that isn't relevant.

Let us look at only one, simple aspect of improvement in any particular sport.

Basically, you and I are both going to pick (at random, but this is really just to ensure that we aren't playing a game of who is the better scout) a group of people who will then be trained by the exact same coaches to play tennis using whatever type of technology we agree upon. Each group will play among themselves in order to find the best player who will then play the best player from the other group.

To start in an extreme manner, you only get to pick ten people and I get to pick ten million. Do you think the best player from your group will be better than my best?

That may be a bit of an overstatement but I understand the argument. But my point is that it may be comparing apples and oranges.

Let's say you get to pick ten million people and I get to pick two million people to play chess. The ten million never played chess before but the two million played chess as a normal part of life. Do you think the best player will come from the two million or the ten million, even after years of training on the ten million side?